Re: [Q]

[Emmanuel <e allaud wanadoo fr>]

On 2001.11.27 15:11 Brian Stafford wrote:
> On Tue, 27 November 07:24 Emmanuel wrote:
>> On 2001.11.26 16:14 Brian Stafford wrote:
> 
>>> If so, I would not reccommend using this for a filter, since it may be 
>>> omitted or in some arbitrary format determined by the sending MUA.  
>>> Only the mailbox part of the address can be compared reliably - and 
>>> even then the usual care is needed wrt case sensitivity on the left 
>>> and right of the @.
>> 
>> For now all search is case insensitive, but I think we could have a way 
>> to change that.
> 
> The domain must always be a case insensitive match.  The left side is 
> harder to make a judgement.  Strictly speaking it is case sensitive, but 
> many systems consider case to be folded so case-insensitive is likely to 
> be right most times.
> 
>>> OTOH, if the mailbox address is used as an index into the local 
>>> address book to find the string to compare for the filter rules, that 
>>> could be made reliable since the user is in control of their address 
>>> book.
>> 
>> Hmm in fact that's exactly what I want : a way to give the user a way 
>> to filter upon things he knows, I mean that in general you don't 
>> remember the e-mail address of someone but you remember his 
>> name/nickname.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> But the problem is : how can I distinct between a "normal" address and 
>> one that is in one of the address books
> 
> I'm not clear what you mean here.

That is when a filter applies to a message, it just has a field of type 
LibBalsaAdress with no reference/index to an address of an address book, 
even if the address is actually in the address book. I think there is just 
no way (but to lookup the address in all addresses books, but that's far 
too long) to determine if the address contained in the message has a 
"reliable" phrase because it comes in fact from the user address book or 
"unreliable". So I think that the better I can do is just trust the phrase 
(anyway, like I said this phrase is wrote in the messages index, so that, 
IMHO, the user should be able to filter upon it).

>> (moreover I want to be able to do that as fast as possible)?
> 
> I would guess that some kind of hashed lookup is needed.
> 

I think this is far too expensive (and if I don't make a mistake you can 
have remote address books?)